[asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 2B from Timaeus - to Don Nield

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Date: Mon Sep 29 2008 - 04:46:46 EDT

Hi David,

Your reluctance is wise. I don't think Denton's first book suceeds in the way Timaeus claims. As for a good review, here is one:



  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Ted Davis
  Cc: asa@lists.calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 7:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Rejoinder 2B from Timaeus - to Don Nield

  Timaeus said: For TEs, Denton's first book should be mandatory reading, because most TEs are convinced that Darwinism is good science, and the first book shows that Darwinism is very poor science, even when "science" is restricted to the narrow view of causation and explanation demanded by Scott, Ken Miller, Dawkins, etc.

  I respond: Timeaus, could you, or could anyone here, point me to a fair, current review of Denton's "Theory in Crisis" book? My understanding is that significant aspects of Denton's criticism in that book have been debunked. My further understanding is that Phil Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" is largely a popularization of Denton's "Theory in Crisis," and that much of Johnson's critique also has been shown to be off the mark on the merits. A non-expert like myself simply is not capable of making an individual evaluation on the merits, and I am extremely reluctant to conclude that the vast majority of working biologists are conspiring to hide the truth.

  David W. Opderbeck
  Associate Professor of Law
  Seton Hall University Law School
  Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 29 04:47:18 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 29 2008 - 04:47:19 EDT